Transcription

1 AGA n 4342/Div FSB Secretariat of the Financial Stability Board, c/o Bank for International Settlements, CH-4002, Basel, Switzerland Paris, 15 December 2014 AFG response to the FSB s consultation on Strengthening Oversight and Regulation of Shadow Banking Regulatory framework for haircuts on non-centrally cleared securities financing transactions General comments The Association Française de la Gestion financière (AFG) 1 welcomes the opportunity to answer to the FSB s consultation on the Regulatory framework for haircuts on non-centrally cleared securities financing transactions. AFG would like to stress an important issue which is the way entities enter into these operations. Our members do not conclude through their managed funds Securities Financing Transactions but Efficient Portfolio Management Techniques motivated by investors best interest. We would like to remind that regulatory concerns around pro-cyclicality and leverage resulting from repo and securities 1 The Association Française de la Gestion financière (AFG) represents the France-based investment management industry, both for collective and discretionary individual portfolio managements. 600 management companies are based in France. AFG members manage 3,000 billion euros, making the Paris fund industry a leader in Europe for the financial management of collective investments (with 1,500 billion euros managed from France, i.e. 19% of all EU assets managed in the form of investment funds). In the field of collective investment, our industry includes beside UCITS the whole range of AIFs, such as: employee savings schemes, regulated hedge funds/funds of hedge funds, private equity funds, real estate funds and socially responsible investment funds. AFG is an active member of the European Fund and Asset Management Association (EFAMA) and of PensionsEurope. AFG is also an active member of the International Investment Funds Association (IIFA). 1

2 lending transactions are better tackled through (already existing) specific legislation such as the UCITS and AIFM frameworks in the EU that are aimed at capping excessive exposures via clear leverage, counterparty and issuer limits, via portfolio diversification requirements, as well as via prescriptions on the collateral quality that is key to securing Efficient Portfolio Management (EPM) techniques. AFG agrees that a large flexibility should be given to counterparties in the choice of collateral, provided that appropriate collateral is secured. We also agree that high quality government securities bear a lower risk and a higher liquidity than other securities. Haircut is considered as one type of requirement when assessing the counterparty risk. Our members believe the counterparties must have the choice either to effectively receive (or post) adequate collateral with haircut or to accept to carry (or create) an open counterparty risk; for example, UCITS that are allowed to have a 5% counterparty risk on a non-bank counterparty could use this ratio to accept that collateral and haircut be not posted entirely. AFG strongly opposes the idea that funds (and their asset managers) should be submitted to specific registration and reporting to enter in SFTs; except for hedge funds, and in Europe that would mean Alternative Investment Funds with a substantial leverage, funds are strictly regulated, constantly monitored and closely supervised and do not present any systemic risk; they should be out of the proposed framework and supervisors should rely on already existing reporting. AFG wishes to point out that, apart from their fiduciary duties vis-à-vis investors, investment managers further count on rigorous (both regulatory and internal) criteria for the selection of their SFT counterparties, as well as on equally rigorous requirements governing collateral quality. In our view, these lines of defence are largely sufficient to prevent the risks identified by the FSB from materialising and where a minimum haircut floor framework would complement only marginally. AFG would like to stress that mutual funds as they are of low risk - should benefit as collateral from a haircut level depending on their investment strategy as defined in the prospectus (and not be applied an unduly penalizing fixed haircut level of 10%). Responses to the questions of the consultation document Q1. Do you agree that the application of the framework of numerical haircut floors as described in Section 3.3 to non-bank-to-non-bank transactions will help to reduce the risk of regulatory arbitrage and would maintain a level playing field? AFG strongly advocates that funds should not be subject to numerical haircut floors when lending or borrowing securities. Indeed, AFG fully agrees with the idea that the primary motivation of a transaction is key to determine the scope of the proposed SFT regulation. We represent asset managers that participate to the securities lending business, always with a call provision. Our members are not looking for any SFT (Securities Financing Transaction) but use EPM (Efficient Portfolio Management) techniques to improve for instance their funds returns. 2

3 It should be recalled that UCITS regulation strongly limits the re-use of received collateral and only AIFs that use substantial leverage may exceed a 3/1 leverage, and as a consequence they have special reporting requirements under AIFMD. Using repos or securities lending is identical from an economical and risk perspective. The choice between these two techniques (repo, securities lending) is determined in opportunity and is based on legal or administrative reasons. Q2. In your view, how significant is the current level of non-bank-to-non-ban transactions? Do you expect that level to increase going forward and why? What types of non-bank entities are, or could be, involved in such transactions? As a first point, AFG would like to point out that non-bank entities and investment funds in particular that engage in SFTs usually transact with prudentially regulated bank entities which are out of the scope of this consultation. However, there might be a tendency in the future to develop direct dealings between non-banks and use banks as intermediary and not counterparty. Asset managers will certainly consider it with a view to better protect their clients interest as it is part of their fiduciary duty to ensure best execution. Asset managers are very active in SFT. We recall that the asset management regulation does consider them not as refinancing activities but as Efficient Portfolio Management techniques. Funds are strictly regulated, continuously monitored and closely supervised. Except for Hedge Funds, and in Europe they are considered as AIFs that use substantial leverage, funds do not develop leveraged strategies and are forbidden to have a risk exposure through borrowing or derivatives that exceeds 3 for 1 in capital (and even 2 to 1 for UCITS). All these funds should be exempted from specific minimal haircut requirements designed to limit refinancing and leverage. AFG disagrees that mutual funds suffer an outright 10% minimum haircut when posted as collateral. Instead, we insist on them being considered according to their investment strategy expressed in their prospectus: main equities or debt instruments or composite. We believe that, except for leveraged hedge funds, funds are very low risk entities and should benefit from lower and not higher haircut requirements. Q3. Do the approaches set out above cover all potential approaches in applying numerical haircut floors to non-bank-to-non-bank transactions? Are there any other approaches? If so, please describe. Yes, our members do not see other types of approaches. We would insist that, notwithstanding the chosen approach, the FSB and domestic supervisory authorities that are to implement the proposed framework guard a sufficient degree of flexibility by exempting certain non-bank financing models that do not pose financial stability risks from the proposed framework. This is the case for the EU regulatory regime applicable to UCITS funds and certain AIFs (that do not use significant leverage). Q4. Please provide any comments you have on the strengths and weaknesses of the approaches set out above, as well as any other approaches you believe the FSB should consider. What issues do you 3

4 see affecting the effective implementation of numerical haircut floors for non-bank-to-non-bank transactions? Our members favour the entity based approach globally, as it includes as a prerequisite a thorough examination of the concerned entity and a specific assessment of its contribution to systemic risk. In that respect we have a strong view that UCITS and AIFs that do not use significant leverage should remain out of the scope of a regulation on minimum haircuts. Funds and investment managers are subject to strict controls and transparent information obligations that are sufficient for supervisors to assess their activities. In terms of motivations, they do not use EPM techniques (or so called SFTs) to refinance their balance sheet since they are limited in their global exposure including through derivatives. The entity based approach is also judicious as it allows an entity to actively manage its counterparty exposure. An entity may use its allowance in terms of counterparty risk exposure to accept limited collateral deposit. This grants a minimal flexibility in a world where regulations are not harmonized and enables an entity to enter in a transaction on almost competitive terms. Q5. What forms of avoidance of the numerical haircut floors are most likely be employed for nonbank-to-non-bank transactions? Which of the proposed implementation approaches is likely to be most effective in preventing such avoidance? AFG strongly believes that this regulation should address the entities that are currently not registered nor supervised. In this perspective, the entity based approach will be more efficient to trace them. Counterparties should only deal with entities that are themselves registered and effectively report their trades. That implies a transaction based approach to identify concerned entities and then an entity based regulation. For well-regulated industries, like that of investment management, numerical haircuts represent only an additional line of defence behind other more important risk management measures aimed at ascertaining the proper credit quality of the counterparty, as well as the quality of collateral. Q6. If different entity-type regulations are used, do you see the need to ensure comparative incentives across different entity types? If so, please describe any potential mechanisms that may help ensure comparative incentives across entity types? Especially from a risk point of view, our members believe that the key criterion to decide any scaling up in the regulation should be the effective leverage of the entities, not their legal nature nor the absolute amount of their positions. Q7. If market regulation is used, should the FSB consider setting a materiality threshold of activity below which entities do not need to register? If so, what could be an appropriate level for such a threshold? We would like to recall that the preferred approach should be the entity approach and not a market regulation. In the case a transaction based approach would be taken, we consider a threshold is necessary so that asset managers and funds being registered, prevented to have high leverage and required to publish extensive reporting should be exempted from registration and specific reporting. 4

5 Q8. Do you see the need for a phase-in period in applying numerical haircut floors to nonbank- tonon-bank transactions, and if so how long should it be and why? Does the appropriate phase-in period vary depending on which approach is followed? Should it vary by jurisdiction based on the size and importance of the non-bank-to-non bank sector or should it be consistent across jurisdictions? AFG believes that a phase in period in relation to related pieces of legislations that are being implemented progressively is unavoidable, especially for such deep and wide type of changes. In Europe, currently there is progressive implementation of the European Markets Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) concerning the regulation of OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories. AFG thus strongly advocates for a comprehensive and coordinate global picture, where any standard haircut is closely linked to the collateral it applies to and related pieces of regulation follow an identical pace for implementation. If you need any further information, please don t hesitate to contact myself, at or Adina Gurau Audibert, at Sincerely Yours, Eric PAGNIEZ 5

EFAMA s response to the FSB s consultation on the proposed application of numerical haircut floors to non bank to non bank transactions EFAMA is the representative association for the European investment

Frankfurt am Main 16 August 2013 BVI s position on the Draft Regulatory Technical Standards on the determination of the overall exposure to a client or a group of connected clients in respect of transactions

The regulatory regime of Exchange traded funds in the European Union Eddy Wymeersch University of Gent Exchange traded funds have become an essential part of our financial landscape: they stand globally

19.2.2013 Official Journal of the European Union C 47/1 III (Preparatory acts) EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK of 24 May 2012 on a draft Commission delegated regulation supplementing

FORDHAM UNIVERSITY THE JESUIT UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 7 April 2014 Via e-mail to fsb@bis.org Secretariat of the Financial Stability Board c/o Bank for International

The LIAJ s Comments on Second Consultative Document Margin requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives 15 March 2013 The Life Insurance Association of Japan (LIAJ) The Life Insurance Association

EBA s Proposed Definition of Shadow Banking poses Risks to the Real Economy Non-Financial Companies and their In-House Financial Services Companies Must Not Be Regarded as Shadow Banks by Supervisory Authorities

02 September 2015 FINAL ECB response to the European Commission s consultation on the review of the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) Executive Summary The ECB welcomes the opportunity to

Public consultation on the possibility for an investment fund to originate loans The purpose of this consultation is to gather the opinions of all interested parties about the possibility for French investment

EFAMA s Submission to ESMA on Issues related to Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) EFAMA is the representative association for the European investment management industry. It represents through its 26 member

EFAMA reply to European Commission consultation paper on Central Securities Depositories (CSDs) and on the Harmonisation of Certain Aspects of Securities Settlement in the European Union Register ID number:

Association for Financial Markets in Europe Response to European Commission Consultation Document on Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities ( UCITS ) 24 October 2012 The Association

June 28, 2013 Comments on the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision s Consultative Document: Supervisory framework for measuring and controlling large exposures Japanese Bankers Association We, the Japanese

SETTING UP IN LUXEMBOURG ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY FUND VEHICLE CONTRACTS DERIVATIVES & SECURITIES OPERATIONS SETTING UP IN LUXEMBOURG JURISCONSUL assists its clients in the setting-up of hedge funds in

PensionsEurope Position on Money Market Funds March 2014 www.pensionseurope.eu 2 About PensionsEurope PensionsEurope represents national associations of pension funds and similar institutions for workplace

Strengthening Oversight and Regulation of Shadow Banking An Overview of Policy Recommendations 29 August 2013 Strengthening Oversight and Regulation of Shadow Banking Executive Summary At the 2011 Summit

The challenge of liquidity and collateral management in the new regulatory landscape ICMA Professional Repo and Collateral Management Course 2012 Agenda 1. Background: The repo product under pressure 2.

2010 Portfolio Management Guidelines Preamble The Board of Directors of the Swiss Bankers Association has adopted these Guidelines in order to maintain and enhance the reputation and high quality of Swiss

European Commission Releases Proposal for Regulation of Money Market Funds 4 September 2013 Today the European Commission (EC) released a proposal for a regulation on money market funds (MMFs) established,

1 10 April 2015 The following table provides a summary of J.P. Morgan Asset Management s comments on the public consultation paper, Arrangements for an Asia Region Funds Passport: Feedback Statement and

How a thoughtful FX strategy can give Fund Managers a competitive edge Executive summary Each alternative investment fund takes a different approach to its investment strategy, but the ultimate goals are

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union DG FISMA CONSULTATION PAPER ON FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NSFR IN

December 2013 Portfolio Management Guidelines Preamble 1. The Board of Directors of the Swiss Bankers Association has adopted these Guidelines in order to maintain and enhance the reputation and high quality

Basel II, Pillar 3 Disclosure for Sun Life Financial Trust Inc. Introduction Basel II is an international framework on capital that applies to deposit taking institutions in many countries, including Canada.

Client Alert 17 March 2016 Final European Standards for Derivatives Collateralisation On 8 March 2016, the three European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) 1 published their final draft regulatory technical

7 October 2015 To: The European Commission Possible impact of the CRR and CRD IV on bank financing of the economy The Danish Bankers Association, the Danish Mortgage Banks' Federation and the Association

The ABI s response to the European Commission s Consultation Document on Foreign Exchange Financial Instruments The ABI The UK Insurance Industry The UK insurance industry is the third largest in the world

FINANSTILSYNET Norway Translation March 2015 This translation is for information purposes only. Legal authenticity remains with the official Norwegian version as published in Norsk Lovtidend. Act on the

This document is issued by Standard Life Investments Property Income Trust Limited (the "Company") and is made available by Standard Life Investments (Corporate Funds) Limited (the AIFM ) solely in order

Introducing SIR/GVV: the new Belgian REIT status July 2014 1 Disclaimer This presentation (the Presentation) has been prepared by members of the working group (the Company) in connection with the adoption

EVLI SWEDEN EQUITY INDEX FUND FUND-SPECIFIC RULES The fund rules consist of fund-specific rules and common rules based on the UCITS IV Directive. 1 The Fund The name of the mutual fund will be Sijoitusrahasto

Treasury and Capital Markets EMIR Services 2013 ITC Infotech This report is solely for internal use. No part of it may be circulated, quoted, or reproduced for distribution outside the organization without

AIMA NOTE Analysis of divergences between the EU Commission s draft regulation implementing the AIFMD and the ESMA advice April 2012 Analysis of divergences between the EU Commission s draft regulation

A Guide to the QFC Collective Investment Schemes Regime Disclaimer The goal of the Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority (Regulatory Authority) in producing this document is to provide a guide to

Comparison table of Luxembourg investment vehicles Chevalier & Sciales The purpose of this memorandum is to set out the different investment vehicles (regulated, lightly regulated and unregulated) that

HOW TO SET UP A GIBRALTAR EXPERIENCED INVESTOR FUND [2 nd Edition, June 2013] When taking the decision to establish an Experienced Investor Fund ( EIF ) in Gibraltar, various matters require consideration.

THE IMPAIRED EU SECURITISATION MARKET: CAUSES, ROADBLOCKS AND HOW TO DEAL WITH THEM Introduction The securitisation market in the EU continues to be impaired. Public issuance of Asset Backed Securities

1 The Bank of England s perspective on CCP risk management, recovery and resolution arrangements Speech given by David Bailey, Director, Financial Market Infrastructure At the Deutsche Boerse Group and